St Francis Med Center of Lynwood Fdn

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953190773
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Woodland Hills, CA, USA
Phone
8185321020
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$479,426
Expenses
$532,777
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ELEANOR RAMIREZ (EX-OFFICIO (THRU 08/2020)): $646,207 total reported compensation
  • TY CONNER (DIRECTOR (THRU 04/2021)): $562,753 total reported compensation
  • TERRI PASION (CFO (THRU 08/2020)): $251,332 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of st. Francis medical center of lynwood foundation ("the foundation") is to develop partnerships to support the philnathropic needs of st. Francis medical center ("sfmc") by raising funds through grants, special events, and donors.

What it reported doing in 2020

Charitable gifts to the foundation help to purchase new equipment for sfmc, modernize and expand facilities at sfmc, and provide the highest quality health care and community programs to those who need it the most. Funds are raised through grants, special fundraising events (for which there were none in the june 30, 2021 fiscal year), and from donors who are committed to making a difference in the lives of the patients of sfmc and their families. The entity is in the process of winding down for eventual dissolution.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 26
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.1%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -31.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 1 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $532K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $646K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2014 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 17 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.